Why is there such a huge outcry from the "evolutionists" about allowing the teaching of "Intelligent Design" or other theories in the public schools? If Darwinist evolutionists believe that their theories of the creation of the earth are correct, then they should not be afraid to allow for the teaching of Intelligent Design and the subsequent debate to occur. Is there a fear in the evolutionist community that through the scientific process and comparison that their theories may be lambasted and others found to be more compatible?

The schools are supposed to be a bastion for learning with various points of view being presented. Our children should be given the opportunity to make up their own minds and learn multiple theories. I have confidence that our children will choose and learn wisely through weighing the scientific tests to see which theory is most plausible on their own. So I hope the evolutionists and state educators will allow the students of North Carolina to make up their own minds on the history of the earth and have faith in the children, rather than having one point of view force fed to them on this issue.

Bill EndrissMorrisville

Yeah, right! Let the kids choose, when all the background they have is from Sunday School.

The Aug. 6 article " 'Design' isn't ready for class" by Jeffrey C. Pugh is another of those tired and unfounded arguments for the elusive connection between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation. Though Pugh applies the words "Intelligent Design" as synonymous with creation, he makes no attempt to define this rather loose and incorrect appellation; indeed, his argument against teaching either theory in the public schools system seems without conviction and without merit.

"Intelligent Design" theory is the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of all life in its diversity. Advocates adhere to the belief that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof of God or superintelligent beings. Science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural. There is no indication that the Theory of Evolution denies the presence of God; indeed, for many believers, creation is an ongoing process, and a strong positive visual proof of the existence of God.

Pugh has attempted to define a problem area that may develop within the public schools system should religion be included in the curriculum, when that is not the aim of the ID theory. More correctly, he should have aimed his article (which by skewed inference might be his point) at the difficulty in having lay teachers attempt to teach two theories of evolution. Most theologians, as well as anthropologists, would agree that "the creation" is an ongoing work.

Pugh seems conflicted about his own religious persuasion, vis-a-vis the creation. However, he seems to rescue himself as he winds up his article by stating, "Belief in deity and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive," which, perhaps, he should have said in the first place. After all, Genesis states, upon completion of each "day" of creation, that God said, "It is good." He never said, "It is perfect."